As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama. And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America. As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance. And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects

9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive

8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows

5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends

4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter. I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements. I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life. Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing. I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too. It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals. While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative? Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine. Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out. They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice. The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home. Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too. And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules. And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about. I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world. I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going. They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening. And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort. Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God. The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month. And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies. We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed. When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted. America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics. The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy. All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned. America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years. We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction. There are famously nine stages of civilization. Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society. In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America. I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people. I need neither weep nor worry. My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise. And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with. They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation. And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe. And here we are.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck. Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields. It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries. Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people. Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us. Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law. They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means. By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination. And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies. It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government. They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican. And of course he was right. But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America. FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries. But they dominate government employees. And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all). That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society. Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power. Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God. Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them. The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result. Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success? This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument. Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that. On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team. And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread? Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks? Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs. Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with. Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda. You do NOThave the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like. They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree. You do not have the right to say anything that offends them. They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives. As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to. They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years. They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes. And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates. But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint. Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow. I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions. There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost. And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard. King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen. Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

this isn’t going to convince any liberals to change their mind (with all the insults).

I am greatly pleased to learn that your strategy has worked where mine has failed and that you’ve convinced the liberals to change their minds. I shall turn on my television immediately to see the transformation.

Oh, oh. It doesn’t seem like your blog has made any damn more difference than you say mine hasn’t made.

I see your strategy: you’re reasoning, “If I just turn on conservatives, liberals will know that I’m one of the “conservatives” that they can reason with.”

You need to understand something: I am NOT writing hoping that liberals will come to my blog and see the light. I’m NOT writing for liberals at all; I’m writing to inform conservatives.

Apparently just not “conservatives” like you. You know, those “conservatives” who like to spend their time criticizing other conservatives. I’m afraid I’m not one of those “conservatives” who goes to other conservatives’ blogs to denounce them in order to pimp my own blog. It’s clearly a failing on my part, I know.

As for the length of this article, two things: 1) I see that you’re a guy who truly likes to criticize others for every nitpicky detail you can, aren’t you?; and 2) this is, I believe, the longest article I’ve written. I had quite a bit to say and on top of that I cited an ENTIRE article to establish my point of profound liberal intolerance. Such that this is literally two full articles in one.

I guess I wish you good luck reaching the liberal masses – profoundly intolerant to other ideas as they are – with your “niceness” policy. I can only give you this bit of advice: keep your articles short. Apparently, somebody who is very, very important has decreed that there is no place in public discourse for a lengthy, substantial article. And you wouldn’t want somebody to come and attack you for violating this law of the universe.

It’s too bad you weren’t around to criticize Leo Tolstoy. I think we can all agree that his War and Peace WAS entirely too long, after all.

John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7) and Jesus called the political and religious enemies of their time “snakes” (Matt 23:33) and a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 12:34) But I guess their insults didn’t get them anywhere, either. Too bad you weren’t around to criticize them for that, as well.

I meant that as a compliment – the length. I’m impressed. I am, however, stunned at your angry response. Just stopping by to say hello. Sorry you were offended.

The insults toward me are not justified either. Honestly, I was just offering a comment that respect and professionalism might be better qualities. Not trying to criticize. Sorry you took it the wrong way. I’m amazed how angry you became at me.

Now whose being the oversensitive whiner? For the record, I never insulted you. I didn’t call you any names in that comment. I used something called “sarcasm” instead. Before you accuse people of things, you ought to know what you’re accusing them of versus what they actually did.

Now, do I insult liberals? It depends. If somebody is proven to be intolerant and I label them “intolerant,” is that an insult? Is the truth an insult?

Look, if I don’t make the case for my labels, that’s one thing. You never say I don’t; you merely find it “insulting” to call people what they in fact are. Apparently, I went to sleep and when I woke up it was suddenly an insult to call Heinrich Himmler a “Nazi” whether Himmler was goose stepping in his Nazi SS uniform or not. Yes, I use words like “intolerant” after producing an article documenting the FACT.

The truth is not an “insult.”

Your post did not come across as either “complimentary” or as anybody “just stopping by to say hi” to me. Still doesn’t.

Your words:

Holy cow – amazing how long you can write these. I have to say though, this isn’t going to convince any liberals to change their mind (with all the insults).

Now, perhaps YOU consider length merely for the sake of being long-winded a “compliment.” I don’t. Would you be “impressed” if I copied and pasted ten pages of the phone book to make a long article? If you had gone on to say something about, “there’s just so much substance!” or “you had many excellent ideas” or anything even remotely close to that I would have appreciated the compliment.

If your wife sings a solo for the church congregation and she asks you how you did, I hope you’ve got the sense NOT to say, “Holy cow – amazing how long that song went.” Because that would be really rude. It wouldn’t be any “compliment” at all. And yet holy cow, that’s exactly what you did to me!

Consider that a reasonable person would have warrant to interpret your remark “Holy cow – amazing how long you can write these” as a criticism regarding excessive wordiness. Consider that your other sentence – “I have to say though, this isn’t going to convince any liberals to change their mind (with all the insults)” is very clearly a criticism by any definition of “criticism” unless you are literally telling me that you intended to say that you are pleased and in full agreement that not convincing any liberals to change their minds with all the insults is a good quality that you share. Consider that given the nature of your highly critical second sentence it becomes even more reasonable to interpret your first one in a similarly critical context. And consider that when you come back and say that you were “Not trying to criticize” makes you a liar. Because there is no question you were criticizing me

So, no, your “just stopping by to say hello” wasn’t very much of a compliment at all, and you’re a liar to suggest it was. And given the fact that you are now whining about how insulted you were to read my response, it turns out to have been quite insulting. Hypocrites drive me nuts.

Call me strange for not going around and offering strange people completely unsolicited “advice” and then wondering why they keep telling me what to go do with myself. I suppose it must just be my peculiarity in not doing that.

I think I’m done with you. You seem to be one of those people I’ve encountered many times before in my blogging: you say something snarky that rather clearly amounts to a knife in the back, then you act like I’ve brutally killed your dog when I react. And always, always focusing on “anger” and “insults” and rhetorical judo to make yourself a poor, innocent victim.

Be a victim somewhere else. Let’s see, let me borrow a few of your terms: I didn’t “insult” you; I merely offered a few compliments, said hello, and offered some helpful tips for you so that you could finally have better qualities that you’re clearly sorely lacking. Not trying to criticize. Sorry you were offended. And btw your insults toward me (such as your most recent one that I lack the “better qualities” of “respect” and even better “professionalism”) were not justified.

That’s just greasy. And greasy makes me queasy. Have you ever considered applying the term “passive aggressive” to yourself?

Suggest to your wife that she is rude and lacking in better qualities but that you aren’t trying to criticize her and then tell her that you were just complimenting her and saying hello. Maybe she’ll appreciate it. I don’t.

You can go now. And if you actually want to “stop by to say hello” to somebody without actually roundly criticizing them, I suggest you learn to do a far, far better job than you did here.